Contact
Subscribe

President signs into law, and tramples on our rights.

Dec 27, 2006
Author: James
Government

President Bush has signed into law a bill that makes it a crime to protest (for OR against) at a funeral. The law prohibits protesters from demonstrating within 150 feet of a funeral and within an hour of the memorial service. The law carries a sentence of one year in jail and/or an undetermined fine for those who violate the new amendment.

While it is not mentioned within the contents of the amendment, it is painfully obvious that the law is a direct reaction to the Westboro Baptist Church and it’s infamous protests. Before the signing of this new law, it was only a crime to protest outside of a national cemetery but as of now, federal law will apply to ALL cemeteries both private and national.

I for one find anyone and anything associated with the Westboro Baptist Church to be both mind-numbingly ignorant, and downright repulsive… but there is one small thing that this law did that would make me side with WBC.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

But then again, when was the last time the Constitution got in the way of a federal law. Repulsive as they are, WBC has a right to express their opinion so long as it is done in such a manner that they do not resort to physical violence or vandalism.

For the record here are some photos of their “message” just to illustrate their power of ‘debate’:

dumb2.jpg dumb1.jpg
dumb3.jpg dumb4.jpg

The ACLU has already been on the defense end of several state bans on protests outside of funerals and in each case, the constitutionality of these such laws has come into play.

Our Constitution sets forth rules for government, to avoid the conflict of oppression on our civil rights, and as far as I am concerned… banning citizen protests is unconstitutional.

9 Comments

  1. Alex  •  Dec 27, 2006 @3:11 PM

    While I’d be all for beating the living daylights out of anyone protesting at a funeral (regardless their cause,) I don’t think it should be against the law.

  2. Bob  •  Dec 27, 2006 @7:07 PM

    Wow, you’re not hypocritical! (NOT)

  3. mgroves  •  Dec 27, 2006 @7:29 PM

    First, I like the new design.

    Second, I completely understand why you are against this law. It makes total sense and I really can’t take issue with what you are saying.

    However, I don’t see a slippery slope with this law. If the law is merely in place to stop these insensitive hatemongering douchebags from interfering with a funeral and a grieving family, then I really can’t get upset about it.

    I can’t think of any other reason to legitimately protest a funeral that can’t be accomplished without trampling on a grieving family.

    It’s a no-win situation I think, but I’d rather side with the families of fallen soldiers than the ghastly Westboro Baptist Church.

  4. nick gray  •  Dec 28, 2006 @6:18 AM

    I am with you mgroves, freedom of speech is one thing, but tormenting a grieving family is another. But yes it is a no win situation.

  5. James  •  Dec 28, 2006 @8:58 AM

    Freedom of speech INCLUDES being an annoying pompous ass.

    Too many people these days think freedom of speech only applies to people on their side.

    I agree with you that if I had to pick a side, it would be the grieving families, BUT from a purely legal standpoint, this law is unconstitutional.

  6. Charles Chy  •  Dec 28, 2006 @9:30 AM

    YO JAMES, YOU KNOW THERE IS A BLOG AT http://WWW.RIGHTONBLOG.COM. TALK ABOUT INVASION OF SOME AMERICAN RIGHT. HOLLA SON.

  7. James  •  Dec 28, 2006 @10:57 AM

    Yes I am aware of his site… and I wish he’d sell me the domain as I wanted the .com when I started this blog a few years back.

  8. Geek  •  Dec 31, 2006 @12:33 AM

    James,

    I tend to agree with mgroves here as well, with a caveat I will get to in a bit.

    Time, place and manner restrictions on speech are typically by and large constitutional not because they regulate speech but the manner in which it is to be carried out (so long as those restrictions serve a reasonable purpose and in this case, I think that is most definitely the case). The right to free speech is not the right to be disruptive toward the affairs of others. No person has any right to interfere or cause harm to the rights of others.

    Where I get annoyed with this type of legislation is because of the long-lost concept of federalism. The unconstitutionality does not come from a violation of the 1st Amendment, but rather the Necessary and Proper Clause. Unless there’s something I’m missing in the text of Article I, Section 8 or the Tenth Amendment, regulating protestors at funerals falls outside the limited scope of the federal power as outlined by our Constitution. Therefore, the responsibility to deal with this matter should fall to the states or more localized governments.

    Of course, constitutional law stopped being about the Constitution during the New Deal. Every solution must be national in nature.

    Quite sad really.

  9. Amendments 1&2  •  Apr 21, 2007 @7:00 AM

    In wake of VT, if they have the freedom of speech to protest at a grieving family’s funeral services for their loved one, then the freedom of anyone wanting to use their right to bare arms and shoot these assholes for protesting should be upheld. Lets stand up for the ENTIRE constitution, not just one line in it. Read the entire First Amendment.

Leave a Reply

Allowed tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

By submitting a comment here you grant this site a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. For further information please see my Comments Policy.